TEE EXPERIMENTAL DRAW-A-GROUP PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUE

FOR MEASURING INTERPSRSGNAL RESPONSIVENESS

APPRO Vi® I

Major Professor

M - (J h Inor Professor

Director of th« Department of Peyohology

< / Dean bf the draduate School

THII* EXPERIMENTAL DHAV-A-GROUP PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUE

FOE MEASURING INTERPERSONAL RSSPONSZVSNSSS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Cosine il of the

North Texas Stats University In Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SOXSXGS

By

John Richard Cookerly, B. A.

Denton, Texas

Awglist| l%$

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Page

LIST OP TABLES . iv

Chapter

I, PRESENTATION OF TH& PROBLEM I Introduction Purpose of the Study Hypothesis and Assumptions

II. RELATED RESEARCH 8

III. METHODOLOGY 18

Subjeota Description of the Instruments and

Procedure The Evaluating Instrument, i.e. How

to Use the Experimental FDraw-a» Group" Projective Technique for Measuring Interpersonal Respon-siveness

Evaluation

IV. RESULTS AID DISCUSSION $2

Testing of the Hypothesis Further Findings

V. SUMMARY 67

APPbiVDIX 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY" 81

lii

LIST Of 3AB&&S

fatol® P«g#

I. Catagorleal Baaoriptloo of fch« Subjaata • • • « • 20

12. 0®aupatt©»# of Persons Satlag Interpersonal Haaponalvaaaaa of Sublets and Amount -of Cautaot with Subjoot# in Catagwy 0 • • • 33

III, Validity Corvalatlana oo the SxparlntotaX ttfiraw»a~§i?©u;j>B Projcotlto Teohniqu* for Interpsrisonal Hesponsivenaaa . . . . . . 5%

IT* Maaa 0orr«latlo»a toy Ago Group# aa CompiUd twm Oatogwrlaa A aod C * • • • « • • • • « 59

V# Spraad of Moan Evaluation# Conparod with Mtnbar and Ptr Oaat of Evaluations Having Parfaot Agraavant 61

if

CHAPTER 1

PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to present an exploratory

iBV@stigati.oii Into the possibility of developing a projective

teohnique for measuring interpersonal responsiveness. The

projective technique explored here is a form of drawing analy-

sis based on the drawing of a group m d e by each subject in

a tested population. Interpersonal responsiveness has to do

with how people respond to others and will be explained later#

Modern widespread use of drawing analysis can probably

be said to have originated with Goodenough's instructions for

approximating children's intelligence through their drawings

of the humao figure, published in 1926 (5). Maohover*s publi-

cation in can largely be oredited with beginning the

present trend to us® the human figure drawing as a projective

technique (9).

The basic theory of projective technique and its corol-

lary, free association, is quite simple, Mursell states it

succinctly when he writes;

The creative work of an artist is a projection and reve-lation of himself. So are the responses of a subject when he is asked to give free association® to a list of stimulus words, or to tell what story is suggested to him by a picture, or to say what he sees in cloud shapes or ink blots. This idea is the working basis of projec-tive testing ( 1 0 ) ,

Buoh also tuts It quit® simply when he explains:

The essenoe of projtotiva methods Is presenting the subject with stimulus situations whloh are "ambiguous" or neutral - that Is, they have no particular meaning except the special, private meaning whloh the individ-ual, toy virtue of'his ©»» needs, projects into them 111).

The systems of loglo supportlog the theory of projective

teohnlque ere found to be varied. It oan be viewed from the

psyohoanalytie depth approach, the learning theorists* atlm-

alas response studies, the life epaoe suppositions of the

field theorists, and the Gestalt laws of perception (6).

All of these and many more are by no means mutually exclusive j

rather* they oan all be useful in forming an understanding of

the phenomenon. However, for the purposes of this paper,

Hllgard*s rather pragmatic loglo is notedt

If there Is a unity of personality which expresses itself directly or indirectly through all that a person does, then there ought to be some way of characterizing this unity, this personality structure lying behind and giving direction to the individual aot. Because this Individual style of behavior ought to reveal itself mmt readily when expression is free, psychologists have selected imaginative productions as being perhaps the most revealing of personality. Zn Imagination the indi-vidual is free to build his own world and to make himself the hero in whatever drama he chooses to construct. Those Imaginative productions the psychologists obtain through projective tests. The personality inventories • • . have fixed alternatives, so that the subject roust reply by making a choice among ready-made answers. Pro-jective tests are more ambiguous and less highly struc-tured, and the answers the subject oan give are freer. Because the subject puts more of himself into the answers, he is said to project his personality through them, as the movie camera projects the image on the screen (?)•

Purpose of the Study

v Since tlit types and purposes of projective tests ar©

manf and varied, ranging froa Mirror drawing to ringer paint*

log analysis, It nay legitimately bo asked, why develop another?

In this oaae the answer is* to add the baat advantages of

projective technique to an araa where measurements art increas-

ingly of uaa but are often laboriously made\ namely, as termed

in this paper, the area of interpersonal responsiveness (1, 3)«

Hypothesis and Assumptions

It was hypothesised that graphlo responses to the stim-

ulua, "draw a group of people", would yield valid and reliable

measurements of interpersonal responsiveness* Interpersonal

responsiveness was operationally defined and measured by (one)

soclonetrio measurements, (two) self ratings on the

Multlirihaslo Personality Inventory# Social Introversion astro*

version Seals. and (three) estimatlona of interpersonal respon-

siveness made by qualified observers along a five point rating

soale.

Interpersonal responslveneee is desoribed as the degree *

to which a person c m successfully respond to others in many

and varied situations, thus causing others to inorease their

positive responsiveness to, or aooeptanoe of, that person*

Interpersonal responsiveness oan also be thought of as involv-

ing a nustber of other faotora such as sensitivity to others j

a general tendonoy to interaot with people individually or in

groups| a person*® general choice-value among others| a lack

of interpersonal Isolation; an ability to interrelate Mean-

ingfully with numerous persons f and that which, is seas times

©ailed social maturity.

It was assumed that those things a person experiences or

those to which he responds, will somehow affect hi a psycho-

logical structure, and that the < ffect of these paat exper-

iences will be reflected in his responding to new stimuli.

In like manner it was assumed that a person*t past interper-

sonal experiences will be projected in his responses, espe-

cially If the stimuli concern interpersonal experiences.

For example: if a boy has a high choice-value among his

friend® and tends to successfully seek a high degree of social

contact with others, he should perceive and express his per-

ception of "a group of people" differently from a girl who

has always experienced isolation and rejection from her asso-

ciates, He should then draw a picture of a group differently

from the girl. To the degree that these kinds of differences

are measurable in a valid and reliable manner, will this

hypothesis be considered supported.

Validity and reliability are given emphasis, because

studies of projective techniques usually show rather low

measurements for these two factors. Bosney and Hampleoan

state{

Undoubtedly the strongest and most persistent erltlclon of ail forms of projective testing concerns the laok of conclusive data on validity and reliability.

a 1 though a large number ox"* research studies are avail-able . , • the overall picture is one of low reliability ana validity (3» PP» •

Sooioaetric data are used in the validity ter.i~ug, be*

cau;:e as Bonney states?

. . . wo can say that a soclometric test measures the choice-status that eaoh individual has In a testad popu-lation at a given time and in refarenee to a stated choice-criterion* It Is a measure of person-to-person responsiveness in which eac- group member renders a judgement in regard to the desirability or undealra-bility of certain other members for a specific purpose, activity, or relationship (2).

It was assumed that over a period of time a person will be

oummulatively affected by the general choice-status he exper-

iences, and these effects will be projected when the proper

stimuli are presented. Thus, it was reasoned that his exper-

iences and behavior patterns involving person-to-person

responsiveness should to some degree be reflected, both in

sociometric data and the "draw-a~groupn projective technique*

The Social 1» 1, Scale of the MMPI was used, because in

various descriptions of this seal© it has been defined at

measuring an essentially similar faotor to that which the

"draw-a-group" technique attempts to measure (6)* Good and

Brantner explain:

* • , the scale has been demonstrated by other studies to measure the tendency toward social introversion or extroversion, or avoidance or we looming of social con-tacts with others} lower scoros indicate a tendency toward extroversion or a preference for social activi-ties and associations with other people

A numerical rating scale has been included, partly be-

cause a testing of the technique «s application to the clinical

population was desired, and this was the only measure allow-

able in several situations* Concerning rating scale®, Bonoey

and fiaxnplenan say:

A rating soale Is a special kind of cheek list in which the item® or characteristics checked must he rated quantitatively or qualitatively according to the degree of presence or absence of a trait, the degree of per-fection ©f a skill, or the degree of completion of a task (3, p. 19).

The rating seal# was used by persons who were experienced in

observing olinioal groups. They rated certain of the ®ub»

jeets for interpersonal responsiveness, and th@«e ratings

were compared with evaluations of interpersonal responsiveness

as Judged from the pictures the subjects drew. In these

groups the validity of the "draw-a-group" technique was

checked against the observer's ratings.

These three meaauremint®, correlated with independent

evaluations of the drawings and lntercorrelations among the

Independent evaluations, constituted the test of the hypo-

thesis*

CHAPTER BIBLIOGMPBY

1. Abt , Lawrence E . a ad Leopold BeXXak, e d i t o r s , P r o m o t i v e Payohology* TTew York, Grove P r e s s , I n c . , 1950#

2 . Sonney, Merl £* , Men ta l Hea l th i n E d u c a t i o n * Boston , Ally® and Baeen* l a c . , 196c , 2&i#

3 . Bonn®j, MerX 1 . and Richard S* HaxnpXeaan, P e r s o n a l - S e e l a l Evaluat ioo Technique», Washington D . C . , The Center £ o r A p p l i e d R e s e a r c h i n Educat ion , I n c . , 1962.

k . Good, P a t r i o i a King-KXlison and John P. Brantner , Tha Physio lap * a Guide t o t h e MMP1. Minneapol i s , u5W«r*> i i t y s t i i n e a o t a P r e a a , T95T, 31$«

5 , Goodenough, FXorenoe L . , The M e a e y e y e n t of InteXXlftenoe bTf Drawings. Yonkers, "i ©rid Book, "1921.

6* Hathaway, S* R. and J , C« MoKinXey, Mlnoesot a Mul t lphas lo Pa r e o a a l i t y Inventory Manual* New York. The jpsycko-logioaX Corporat ion , 195X*

7 , HiXgard, Ernest R*, I n t e o d i y t l o n t o Psycho logy , New York, Haroourt , Braee and Co*, 19577 4 0 1 ,

8 , HiXgard, Brneat R . , T h e o r i e s of Lea rn ing* lew York, A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , i n c * , 195&*

9 , Wachover, Karan, Per f o o t e r | S 2 i | £ M 2 E T M - I M M t i M of t h e Human F igu re» g i r l n g f i e X d * I l l i n o i s * C h a r l e a <57 fSSnas , ' 1 9 W .

10 . Mursa l l , Jaaea L*, P a j o h o l o g i o a l T e s t i n g , New York, Longmans, Green and C o . , X9l*9# 'tylb#

XX* Ruch, PXoyd L«, PsyohoXogy and Lit** DaXXas, T e x a s , S c o t t , Foraaman and c o * , 1953# 3 6 .

CHAFTKR II

RELATED RESEARCH

The acceptance of drawing analysis among the projective

techniques has long bean established. Articles were being

written concerning the psychological, interpretation of

drawing® in the nineteenth, century (lit)• One of theas.

Children«s Expression Through Drawing published in lQ9kt wac

a remarkable forerunner of today*a procedurea in drawing

analysis although it was by no means a research study as

judged by today *a atandarda (2).

The uses of projective techniques involving drawing

analysis are quite varied. On one end of the oontinuum,

there is the Bender Visual-Motor tfeatalt test. This is a

rather structured teat which is used widely in preliminary

testing for organic neurological disturbances# although it

has a number of other uses (16)« At the other end of the

continuum is the much less structured finger painting tech-

nique which is not only a diagnostic tool but also a thera-

peutic and educational device (^)« Three ©f the most popular

graphic projectIves are those commonly called the Draw-*-Man.

the Human-fflgura-Drawing. and the House-free-Person tests.

The first of these has been applied largely to the estimation

of children's intelligence; the second is used primarily in

8

p@rsooaiity diagnosisj and the third Is sometimes used for

both purposes (3),

Lawton and Sachrest (5) state that the Draw»a»gamlly

teat is u common variant of the Draw-a-Person tost, and that

it is thought to be especially useful in understanding the

family backgrounds of clinioal oubjects. However, their

study of this hypothesis found it to be insufficiently *»up-

ported. Another variant of the Draw-a-Peraon Is what Levy

(7) oalls the Praw-and^tEsll*a»Stor?/ technique* In this

procedure the subject is asked to draw two human figures of

his own sex and one of the opposite sex using only one side

of an ordinary piece ©f paper# fh® subject is then asked to

give names to the three figures and to tell & story about

them. The similarity between this technique and the one

explored by this paper is evident in Levy's comment!

This technique sets up a triangular situation, and the story that is told will frequently be illum-inating with respect to the interpersonal attitudes of the subject, who will impose his Idiosyncratic interpretation of the situation (7)#

Praw-and-Tell-a»3tory and the "draw-a-group* techniques

both involve groups of people, possible interpersonal inter-

action, and interpersonal attitudes. However, the differ-

ences are a® apparent as the similarities-, that is, the

Bdraw-a-group" has no limit set on the number or sex of the

figures| it can be administered in group as well as individ-

ual form| it is evaluated without the addition of verbal con-

tent | and it aims at measuring interpersonal responsiveness,

10

while the Draw-and~fe11-a-Story technique attempts to discover

interpersonal conflicts.

Another graphic technique which is similar to the "draw-

a-£,roupn projective is proceduref but not purpose, is the

Praw»a-Scene test* West explains the development and inves-

tigation of this test by stating!

The purpose of this study is to test the hypothe-sis that a test which requires the subject to draw a seen# (D-A-S) will correlate higher with a "standard" intelligence scale like the Stanford-Bluet and with academic grades than doe® Good®sough*s Draw-a-Man (D-A-M) test (IS).

litsahe and Them (10) discus® a study which they title,

"Children*8 Like and Dislike drawings". Children were asked

to draw pictures of things they liked or didn't like in hopes

that this would provide insight® into their personalities.

However, their findings were inconclusive.

In surveying the literature, very few studies are found

to have a direct bearing on both the technique and the pur-

pose of this exploratory research. Machover disousses sev-

eral factors which relate to interpersonal responsiveness In

the drawing of a human figure. One of her findings was,

"Subjects who draw the head as the last feature of their

figure usually show disturbance in interpersonal relation*

ships" (f). Statements such a® this could very easily be

helpful in expanding the use of the "draw-a-group" technique

if It were thought to be worthy of further effort. However,

Machover*s work appears to be aore of a system of classifying

11

than one of Measuring degress of phenomena, which was the

purpose of the "draw-a-group" projective.

In investigation which is more directly related to the

"draw-a-group" study was done by Pflaum (11), In his work

subjects ware asked to draw a geometric type figure with

straight lines connecting dots. Each figure was to be drawn

immediately after a stimulus word was spoken, and was also

to be abstractly representative of the stimulus word. The

subjects were given the Guilford Zimmerman feaperaeot Survey.

This test yields sociability and frleadllneis scores, de-

scribed in terras of introversion and extroversion tendencies.

Among Pflaum * a findings was the following:

Those Ss CsubjectqJ who had a high so ore on the Soc la-bility factor of the Guilford Zimmerman Tempermant Survey or a low aoore on the Friendliness factor showed a greater use of Symmetry in their drawings than those who had a low Sociability or a high Friendliness score on the Survey (11, p. 285).

A further analysis of figures led him to conclude:

Those S® who drew many syasaMitrieal figures can b© said to be socially bold and have a desire to dominate. They are "extroverted" in that they seek the company of others with a motive to control rather than to reciprocate. On the other hand, the S who makes much use of Perspective tends toward "introversion". Such Ss are shy but can reciprocate friendship if approached

(11, p. 285).

Pflaum»a findings indicate some attention should be given to

symmetry and perspective in examining the "draw-a-group" pic-

tures, This might eapeoially be so when considering the

pictures matched with the MMPI scores for social Introversion

and extroversion, since Pflaum used a measure of these factors.

12

The study deemed moat related to the "tlraw-a-group"

protective is part of Libo *s (8) investigation of group

cohesiveness which involves a projective technique, Libo

desoribes this instrument in the following manner:

The Group-Picture-Impressions (G-P-I) consists of three pictures, line drawings of people in three dif-ferent group or crowd situations, about which short original stories are to be written by the subject, fwo forma were oonstruoted, one for each sex* At pre* Bent, the measure is designed for use with homogeneous sex gt»o«p«s only. fhe major use of the G-F-I has been with groups consisting of from three'to twelve m#»b@i»sj the useful age range ha® been from If to 30 year® (8. P. St*).

In describing the G-P-I pictures Libo says, "All the figures

drawn appear similar in fuse, physique, age, and dress, to

suoh an extent that subjects often point out the nebulous

character of the persons protrayed" (8, p. % ) m

The G-P-I is group administered and is presented to the

subjeots in a well struotured form. It takes approximately

twenty-five Minutes to complete, fhe pictures ar# each

presented opposite an answer sheet in & booklet which contains

the following questional "What is happening? Who is Involved?

What led up to this? What happened before? What is being

thought and felt? What is wanted? What will happen? What

will be done?" (8, p. 55) •

•fhe seoring systero is by coding, involving six oat®-

gories, the basis of which is, "Locomotion, physical or psycho-

logical, toward or away from one or more other Individuals or

a group" (8, p. 60)» In surveying these categories it was

13

seen that the G-P-I apparently measures something different

from, but definitely involving, interpersonal responsiveness

ma described in chapter one.

The procedure for Libo's investigation Involved the

setting up and testing of voluntary experimental groups.

Group ooheaivenes® was iueasured by the tendency of subjects

to leave or stay in their group. Several measurements in-

cluding the G-P-I were used in attempting to predict these

tendencies. Results indicated that the G-P-I technique was

acceptably predictive, and therefore validity was established,

while other findings provided evidence of sufficient relia-

bility (8, pp. 19-51).

Libo*s study and the Bdraw-a-grouptt investigation are

similar in that they use both organized groups and several

measurements to cross check the projective technique involved.

Libo draws several conclusions from his findings which have

direct bearing on the ndraw-a~group" technique. He statest

In demonstrating that a projective technique can be used to measure the characteristics of an object in the social psychological field, in addition to its usual application as a measure of enduring character-istics of the person, we can see an enlargement of th-s potential measursuent applications of projective approaches (0, p. $ 0 ) .

He further points out that there are advantages to measuring

factors in the positive as well as the negative, instead of

just the latter, which is often the case in scales involving

psychological phenomena.

Libo formulates several requirements for projective

techniques attempting to measure social, group, and interper-

sonal factors* SOTO of these criteria seem more applicable

than others. Those having a definite bearing on the possible

value of the "draw-a-group" investigation are repeated her®*

(a) The subject fs task should be interesting and of short duration (15> to 20 minutes) .

(b) The purpose of the measure should not be apparent to the subjeot.

(o) The stimuli presented should evoke a wide range of responses,

(d) The stimuli presented should evoke cod©able responses relevant to the concept being measured.

(e) The . . . scoring of a subject »s productions should be simple and objective.

(f) Controlled studies should demonstrate the validity of the measure in discriminating members known to differ, on the basis of independent criteria, in attraction to theIr group (8, pp. $3-5^)•

A review of the literature concerning drawing analysis

exposes considerable disagreement over Its status a® a reli-

able and valid technique. The following is a sa»all sample

of the numerous articles devoted to this problem.

Sllverstein and Robinson (12) obtained self figure and

other drawings from a group of paralytic and normal children.

They found that judges were unable to distinguish between the

drawings of the two groups, even as to body treatment, which

was thought to be the roost significant indicator studied.

In partial contradiction to these findings, Barman and

Laffal (1) discovered a mildly positive correlation between

psychiatric patients1 real body types and the judged body

types of their human figure drawings.

1$

An attempt to objectify human figure drawings by assigning

numerical scores to graphic traits was made by Lehner and

Ganderson (6). Their results indicated that numerically

treated, the technique did raise its reliability.

Stonesifer (13) attempted to apply a similar objective

scoring system in Measuring personality variables of schizo-

phrenic and non-psychotic subjects with the Goodenough scale»

His results indicated that there was no significant differ-

ence found between the two groups.

These findings are but a few of the many which justifi-

ably obscure the answers to the questions of accuracy and

value, intrinsic to the use of projective techniques.

Two things are concluded from surveying the literature

related to the "draw-a-group" projective technique: First,

there is a marked lack of research directly related to this

investigation, although more remotely similar studies are

numerous. Second, reliability and validity measures should

be a very strong concern when working with drawing analysis

techniques.

CHAPTER 01 BLIOfiMPHX

1» Barman, Sidney and Julius Laffa l , "Body Type and Figure Drawing, n Journal of Clinical Psychology, IX (October, 19^35, 3 ^ 3 7 ^ 7

2, Calverton, Samuel Bertrand. Children/a Expreaslon Through Drawing. BaitImore. Maryland. willlams S n r m k l M S a t t 1 8 * .

3# Greene, Edward B«, Measurements of Huoan Behavior. New York, The Odyssey Press, l'9lJT* '

Ij. Kadis, A ay a L«, "Finger-Painting as a Projective Tech-nique," Projective Psychology. edited by Lawrence £. Abt and Leopold l i f f f i j w f York, Grove Press, Inc . , 1950, 1*03-1*30.

5 . L&wton, Iters la J . mod Lee 3eohrest, "Figure Drawing® by Young Boy# Fro® Father-Present and Father-Absent Boats. B Journal of Clinical Psychology* XVIII (July! l W I , loit=3Sg:

6 . Lehner , George and Er ic K. Gunderson, " R e l i a b i l i t y of

7. Levy, Sidney, "Figure Drawing as a Projective Test," P r o j e c t i v e Psychology, e d i t e d by Lawrence I . Abt ana Leopold Beilalc, lew York, Orove Press. Inc . , 1950, 285.

S« Llbo. Leeter M«. Measuring Group Cohesiveaess. Ann Arbor. Michigan, University o T ^ f c h l g « n , l i > 3 .

9* Machover. Karen. Personality Projection In the Drawing o£ the H«ron*Tpiuri7^rIngj'teI'd l i l i e s ; l a r f e s C7 Tbmm§ 191*9, If©.

10* Nitsohe, Carl J, and William Thon, "Children*a Like and Dislike Drawings," Journal of Projective Tsoh-niques. XXIII (lfereh, 1959), ?Z*' "

11* Pflavaa, John, "Restricted Figure Drawing as a Projective Measure of Personality." Journal of Social Psy-chology. LVTII (1962), 2Qj=mi

16

I?

12, Silver stain. A, B. and it* A« Robinson, "The Represen-tation o f Orthopedic Disability ID Children's Figure Drawings." Journal of Consulting Psychology. XX (October, i^6)7T33=3fci:

13* S t o o # # l f « r , Fred A . , "A GoodeBough Scale Evaluation o f Human Figures Drawn by Schizophrenics and I®n« fsyehetic A d u l t s , " J o u r n a l o f S l i a l e a l P w o h o l o g y . V (October, 19^9), """

1U# Stuart, Gilbert, Understanding Children In School, Syracuse, lew York'; C. wT lara^eo"Co7,~TB^7

15* W e s t , John Hamilton, "Correlates of the Draw«*a-Scene Test," Journal of Clinical Psychology. XVI (Janu-ary, i ^ S f f T T W - 5 ? . —

16* woltiuaon, Adolf Or., "The Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test,* Projective Psychology. edited by Lawrence £• Abt arid Leopold BeXlalls, »ew York, Grove Press. Inc., 1950, 322-35U.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

There were 102 subjects to this investigation# 10? of

them being male nod 75 female# The age® ranged from seven

to eighty-tight, the mean age being thirty-four years and

two months. The subjects all belonged In one of three cate-

gories.

Category A consisted of seventy-eight subjects who were

members of various organised groups which had engaged In at

least two social activities and met on at least a weekly

basis during the two months prior to their completing th«

"draw-a-group" projective technique and a soolometrio q ies-

tlonalre. One group was made up of children# another of

adolescents# a third of young adults# the fourth of middle

aged adults and the fifth consisted of older adults.

Category B contained thirty six subjects who had com-

pleted the "draw-a-group" projective and who had taken the

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. This yielded

a score on the Soclal Introversion gxtroveraioa Scale of the

iMMPI for each subject in this category.

Category C consisted of sixty eight subjects who com-

pleted the "draw-a-group" projective# and who could be

18

19

divided Into five classifications or clients commonly tested

by psychologist®. For each of these subjects an estimation

of their interpersonal responsiveness was made along a five

point seal®. These estimations were made by qualified people

who had gathered social histories oi* the individuals and who

had dealt with then in group situations for one or more months,

The numerical data concerning all 182 subjects is pre- *

seated in Table I for easy comparison among the three cate-

gories and their subdivisions. The following gives a descrip-

tion of the groups listed under the category headings. The

descriptive name of etch group is given In the table*© left

hand oolumn. This is followed, from left to right, by the

number of subjeots in the group who were present and partici-

pated in the investigation; the number of male subjeots; the

number of female subjeots; the lower and upper limits of the

age range given in years, the months being rounded off; and

finally in the right hand column the approximate mean age of

the subjects, given in years and months. In the last row of

each category are listed the totals for each of the columns

just described,

Ths left hand column of Category A in Table I begins

with the Preteen Club* Eleven subjeots made up the active

membership of the Carswell Air Force Base Preteen Club.

These children were dependents of active or retired military

personnel. At the time that they became part of this investi-

gation, their club had been meeting once a week for four

20

fABLS I

CATEGORICAL DSSGBIFA'IOI OF M l SUBJECTS

Category A, Subjects Belonging to Organlted Group® ivbir 1 1 Am Emm 1' H®tn "&m Jn

Group la Group Male Female Wm ««* All

Yr». & Moa.

Preteen Club 11 6 5 9 11 11.9 Civ 11 Air Patrol 19 12 7 13 1? 15.0

Social an# Career Club 8 )4 k 18 20 19.2

Couples church school olaae pj| 13 11 26 k3 32.1»

Golden pj| k3 32.1»

Fellowahlp 16 2 lli 86 7k.7 Category A

,r8 , J&ULM*. ,.21 17, m i_ ,r8 , J&ULM*.

Category B« St&bjeots with Soolal I.E. Sooree Isabtr ' Wm§ laol© "Heari "Age""la

Group in Group Hal® F&awti® Wm ; TO Yrs. & Mos.

MHPI Teated 36 26 10 17 .,s., 1|>0*1

Category 0* Subjects with EstlamtIons of

NUBlDer Af?e Racine Ifeaa '&g«' lis Group. Id Group Male ftaal# Wca Trs# .& Misa#i

ProbleiB ' children 1? 10 7 7 12 9.8

Juvenile offendera 20 15 5 13 17 15.1

Dnemployed 18 2l| 21.8 adults 10 6 U 18 2l| 21.8

Payohlaferls 8 18

2l|

patients 12 8 18 55 33.1 Gerlatrlo

65 counsslees 9 J? 65 88 79.7 Category C

68 2k 88 totals, r 68 2k 88 3i«?

I®* of Asa Range. Mean Age In All Subjeota Subjects Male Female Worn To Yra. & Mos.

Total % £)<•* 1©« m 11 7, 0| J M ,

21

mouths. A© ©an be seen in the table, the mx ratio was fair*

ly balanced but their mean age skewed upward approaching

twelve year®# All vera enrolled In the publlo school system#

Prom all that oould be discovered from the adult leadership

of this club, these ohlldren were apparently quite normal.

The seoond group in Category A consisted of nineteen

teenagers who were all members of the Carawell Air Force Base

Civil Air Patrol Squadron, This squadron had been In exist-

ence five years, meeting twice each week. Seven of the mem-

bers were military dependents and the other twelve came from

the civilian population. All were enrolled In Fort Worth

junior or senior high schools, and from all evidence obtained

were representative of normal adolescent®. As can be seen in

Table I boys outnumbered girls In the squadron, but the girls

appeared to be a very active part of the group.

Eight unmarried young adults made up the third group In

Category A and were members of the Social and Career Club, an

Independent group formed primarily to further the social life

of its members. This group had been in existence only two

and one-half month®, meeting once a week. Therefore, only

eight of its members qualified to take part in this study.

From nil appearances its members seemed to be healthy, normal,

young adults.

The twenty four subjects of the adult couples class of «

the First Kethodist Church in Arlington, Texas were all

married. This group had been in existence eight years,

22

aeeting five to six times a month. Proa observation and th«

Information offtred by the ministerial assistant, these cou-

ples oould all be described as normal adults* Some of th«

couples were not represented by both partners due to their

working in other sections of the church school. Thus, the

uneven sex ratio.

Sixteen older adult members of the Golden Fellowship of

Arlington, Texas participated in the investigation, making

up the last group la Category A, Table I shows that only two

of these were ®ales, causing the sex ratio to be inbalaoced.

The group consisted of elderly retired people who met twice

a week for recreational and inspirational purposes, under the

sponsorship of the First Methodist Church in Arlington, Texas,

Frcrn all appearances this was an active* perhaps above average,

group of elderly people.

Surveying these five groups, it can 'be said that Cate-

gory A consisted of normal subjects who by all appearances

are acceptable representatives of the general populace. The

organized groups had all been in existence for at least two

and one-half months. The total number, the totals by sex,

the expanse of the age range, and the total »®an age of all

the subjects are given in the last row of Category A in

Table I,

To obtain the subjects listed in Categories B and C, as

well a© the cooperation needed for testing these subject®,,

complete anonymity for agencies as well as subjects had to be

23

guaranteed in several situations. This provision is complied

with throughout the two categories# The name and, location

of the source fro® which the subjects came will not be given.

Category B consisted of thirty-six subjects who had been

rec omniancled for psychological testing from several sources

due to a wide variety of reasons. Some of the subjects were

being tested for vocational placement or advancement, others

for general personality assessments, and still others for

clinical type evaluations. Because of this diversification

the category is termed i-ixeu. All wero given the MM PI and

the Wdraw-a-group" projective in individual testing situa-

tions. Table I shows that these subjects can be classified

as adults, the youngest of which was seventeen years of age.

There were more than twice as r.any males as females, and

consequently this could bias the sample .for this category.

The "draw-a-group" pictures from the subjects in Cate-

gory C were all obtained in psychological testing situations.

The first subdivision of this category is problem children.

These children were referred for psychological evaluation by

a county child welfare worker, all having manifested symptom©

of abnormal behavior. None of these children were living

with both biological parents, and all had been declared de-

pendent and neglected by a county court. Table I shows that

their mean age was slightly over nine and one-half and that

there were slightly more males than females.

2i|

Tm second group in Category C consisted of twenty

juveniles who were being dealt with by a county juvenile

division for repeated offancas against the law. Jot all of

these juvenilis had been judged delinquent^ hence the tern

juvenile offenders is used to describe them. All were recom-

mended for psychological testing in preparation for their

upcoming hearings or trials. It is to be noted in Taole I

that the ratio of males over females is quite pronounced in

this group.

Tea youn^ adults who had sat with chronic unemployment

difficulties and who had besa referred for psychological

evaluation by a welfare agency, read a up the third group in

Category C, All of these subjects had been dismissed or had

resigned from a large number of jobs. Three of the four

females had also been in difficulty with the law on numerous

occasions, and each of the six males had been arrested for

an occasional disturbance.

The fourth subdivision listed under Category C was made

up of twelve subjects who were patients on the psychiatric

ward of a fairly largo general hospital. Each of these pa-

tients had been hospitalized for at least a month. They

represented a wide variety of psychiatric diagnoses, ranging

from alcoholism with anxiety neurosis to schizophrenic re-

action of the mild catatonic typa. Table I shows there to be

twice as many men as women in this group. The wide spread

age range is also to be noted.

25

The last group in Category G consisted of nine elderly

counseleas Mho were beginning members of a community center's

geriatric program. They were referred for psychological

testing as part of the center*s attempt to survey their needs,

For the most part, their situations were those of the usual

older person who seeks generalized aid from an agency. On

the whole, their problems were not considered acute.

In the last row of Category C it should be noted that

the total number of males for this division is close to being

twice that of females.

At the bottom of Table I the totals for the entire 182

subjects are given. Since there are thirty-two more males

than females* a considerable bias for the males may exist,

particularly when considering some of the subdivisions in the

table. Thia distribution is especially weighted toward the

males in the adolescent groups, the HMFI tested subjects,

and the psychiatric patients. However, in considering the

older adults, the females are predominant.

Table I makes possible an easy comparison of the sub-

jects by categories. It can be seen that Categories A and C

are both divided into five groups, while Category B remains

undivided. A comparison of the mean ages shows that the five

groups in Category A correspond closely with the five groups

in Category C. A survey of the age ranges also demonstrates

the corresponding nature of the several age levels in the two

categories. In the same manner, it can be seen that since

26

Category B consists ©f adults, It doea not lead itself to agt

©©taparisoi with the other two categories. Dim to tins slal*

larlty exietlog among the too aubdlviaiona ia Categories A

* D d ^ *• felt that they can bo grouped together when

considering til# results by. ago groupa* fhaa, the eleven

ehildron in Category A and tha eeventeen children in Category

® mako up a group ©f tventy-eight aubjeota repreaenting chil-

dren* It ahould bo noted that thia aggrogato group ia not

representative of ohildron ia the normal population, but

rath®* tha Mixture of normal and abnormal children, who are

more likely to be aoea by oouaaelora and psyohologiats la

professional situations* In thia nanner adolescents, young

adults, adults, and older adulta of both oatogorioa are

grouped for osnparison aaoag age levela* The procedure and

reaulting findinga for age ooaparison are given later*

Is Table I the subjects ia Category A wore all termed

normal and subjects in Category C clinical* Xa viewing tha

table a ooaparison can be nada between the five normal groupa

Itt Category A and tha five olinioal groupa in Category C aa

*• total nuaber, and their totala for sax* In oon-

aidering these factors, a very similar oonfiguration of

totala exists between the two adoleacent groupa and the two

young adult groupa* Slightly leaa elailarlty la obaerved

between the two children*# groupa. The two adult and the

two older adult groupa vary even aore, but still the differ-

onooa are not great.

2?

The totals for Categories 4 and C show that there are

ten mora subjeote in Category A, htid more males In Cats gory

Cf and seventeen more females la Category A* The age rang* .

for Category A U approximately aeveoty-eoven years* while

for Category C it is approxlaately elghty»one years, The dif-

ference between tha mean agea of the subjects In Categories

A and 0 la only years*

However* la considering Category B# Table 1 shows that

it la essentially different lit most reapeots twm Categories

A and C. Therefore, it will be considered separately and

without comparison to then*

In sanation* the comparisons between the normal groups

and the ollnloal groups shows in Table I demonstrate that

Category A is roughly comparable to Category 0 except with

regard to tha normal - ollnloal factor* Therefore* for the

purposes of this exploratory study* differences as to how

the pictures were drawn may be noted la comparing the normal

groups with tha ollnloal ones.

Description of the Instruments and Procedure

The following baaio procedure was used in administering

the "draw-a-group" projective technique. .

Eaoh subject waa presented an ordinary sheet of blank

white paper* approximately eight and one*half by eleven

Inches* and a sharpened pencil* usually of number two hardness*

with an eraser. The following sentence was then stated to

28

tha aubjaet, "Flaasa draw a group of paopla"• Quaationa

aakad fey tha aubjaot, £.a,, how *any psopla should b@ drawn,

should thay bs doing aoaathlng, ate.. wsra »at with the r«»

ply, "It la yonr drawing. You may do it howa*sr you wish",

Statsnants indloatlng oonosrn otar artlatlo quality wara

told, "How good an artlat you are doasn't aattar at all,

Juat do It your own way and that will b« quita good anough",

In thla nannar all statamanta and <pi«®ti®n» wsra handlad in

anoh a way aa to not iiiait or guld« tha drawing,

Por group administration of tha ndraw~a«group" tha pro-

eadtirs wa@ tha MUM* sxoept tha aubjaots wara spy®ad out to

tha axtant that they could not eas aaoh othara* drawings,

Thay wara also told not to talk unitas it waa to ask partl~

nant qusstlona, In adalnlstaring tha taohnlqua to tha sub-

jects la Catagory A tha proosdura waa aa outllnad balow,

A regular meeting of aach of the five groups waa at-

tandad. By prearrangement a portion of aaoh of thaaa settings

was sat aalda for "an Important psyohologleal experiment", and

& portion of tha Mating room waa designated at the tasting

araa, To begin tha experiment the following statements wara

made t "Will all thosa praaant who ara not regular members

of thla group plaaaa Isava tha designated tasting araa. Will

all thosa ragular membera of thla group who have not attandsd

at laast two of the group*a aaolals in tha last two months

also plsaaa leave ths araa," Arrangementa had been made so

that people who laft tha araa would not disturb or Influsnoa

29

those remaining. The remaining subjects ware told to spread

out as muoh as possible and were asked to stay silent until

the experiment was finished. They were thee each given paper

and pencil and then told not to make any marks on the paper

until the instructions were given. After thle the following

statement® were mads.

You are about to participate in a serious psycho-log leal experiment. Your group has been ehosen because it is a good group of average and better than average members. The purpose of the experiment has to do with finding ways to help other individuals and groups less fortunate than yourselves. This will be explained fully after you have finished. Any questions you have will also be fully answered after the" experiment is over. You are to remain completely quiet until then except for questions concerning the Instructions given you. If you have a question, raise your hand and then whisper it to ate when I come to you. You may take as Kuch time a® you wish. Please be careful about keeping your own work from the view of others, and please do not look to see what others are doing. It is very im-portant that you not be influenced by others in any way. Let me also say that your work will be kept com-pletely confidential. No member of this group will ever set the results of another*# work. All names will be changed to numbers and will no longer be used.

At this point the basic procedure stated above, was

followed. After all had finished the drawing of a group the

following instructions were given.

Mow everyone please turn your paper blank side up and write your name and age tpause!, How draw a circle around your name and age tpause!, irfrlte the numeral one under your name and answer the following question beaide it tpausel, n0f the people sitting in this area and participating in this experiment, who are the ones with whom you would like to attend a party?1®. You may name as many or as few as you please, but do not us© terms like all, anyone, everyone, etc* Write each per-sonfe name as you know it CpauseJ#

low make the numeral two under your answer to the last question, and answer the following question Cpause},

30

"Of the people In this area and participating in this experiment, who are the ones with whom you would like to go on a sight-seeing tour?" Again, you may name as many or as few as you pleas©, but do not use terms like all, everyone, eto. When you are finished raise your hand and your paper will be taken up. Remember that you have as much time as you wish.

The so instructions, or sections of them,were repeated on

request.

In administering the "draw-a-group" projective to sub-

jects in Categories B (MMPI tested) and C (qualified est i-

/nations) the procedure was as given below«

The subjects were tested individually in situations

similar to that of moat psychological testing. For all the

subjects in Category 3 and for a majority of the subjects in

Category C, preceding the "draw-a-group" projective the sub-

jects were administered the Bender Gestalt and the Humm

Figure Drawing tests. The "draw-a-group" technique was ad-

ministered in the manner previously described as the basic

procedure. Various other tests germane to the subject'a

particular situations followed. The booklet form of the

KMF-1 was included for those of Category B in the tests fol-

lowing the wdraw-a-group" projective.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inveotory is a

true-false test in which the Sooial Introversion tSxtroverslon

Scale (usually referred to as Scale 0) is integrated. The

MMPI M&MU1L states that this scale "aims to measure the tend-

ency to withdraw from social contact with others" (i|,}»

31

Marks and Seaman comment on the obvious face validity

of the test Items and state: "3cale 0 is a 70 item seal® meas-

uring the degree of social Introversion-extroversion. . .It la

also the only clinical scalo for which the criterion group was

comprised of a non-psychiatric (normal) sample" (5)«

Also commenting on the validity and construction of the

instrument, Dahlatrom and vvelsh say:

Tha scale items were chosen by contrasting groups of students in the guidance program at the University of Wisconsin who scored above the 65th centile rank and below the 35th centile rank on the subscale for social introversion-extroversion in the Minnesota T-S-I Inventory. . .The final scale inoludes the items which separated these groups and were endorsed by the test subjects with sufficient frequency to be useful in the differentiation (1).

From studies by Drake and Getting it was concluded that:

Patterns with a high coding of 0 were found ©song persons showing introverslv© characteristics, especially shyness, social insecurity and social withdrawal. , . A low coding of Scale 0 is probably indicative of an adequate social adjustment, even in patterns that are usually associated with somewhat serious problems (3* P« 15) •

Prom the statements of these authors it is concluded

that Scale 0 bears sufficient relationship to the subject of

investigation in this study. However, two areas of caution

should be noted when considering the results of this instru-

ment »s use in Category 3.

Drake and Getting point out that "since Scale 0 was

derived and cross validated on a college group, it is not

surprising to find that patterns including this scale are

related to various aspects of social adjustment in college"

32

(3* P* 15)• How auch social adjustment in college has to do

with the Interpersonal responsiveness or the subjects in

Category 3 is not known; nor is the amount of collage ex-

perience of subjects« in Category B known*

Concerning the second area of caution, it is noted that

the original formation of Scale Q in 19i*4 was baaed on a

sample of 100 women, mm being excluded because of ill® war

and thus the likelihood, of obtaining an atypical male sample

(2, pp, £l-$U)* However, subsequent studies have shown a

strong similarity between the scores of male© and fenalas,

Drake in 191+6 published a research article finding a cor-

relation of -.72 for females and -.71 for xaales between the

Mian#at®tea. T-S-E Inventory aod Scale 0. The coefficients are

negative because the key for Scale 0 shows high scores in-

dicative of Introversion, whereas in the T-S-g low scores sre

indicative of introversion (2, pp. Sl»5tf)#

i ora the evidence describing Scale 0, it seemed reason-

able to assume that this instrument should tap a factor

ocraparabl® to interpersonal responsiveness as described in

chapter one.

For each of the subjects treated in Category C a rating

of their interpersonal responsiveness was »ad® by a p«si»s®ia

having dealt with there while working in an occupation con-

nected with behavioral disciplines# Table II sussa&rises

these oooupationa, the subjects they rated, and the approxi-

mate amount of contact they had with the subjects. An

3J

examination of tha second column of the table ahowa that

there viaa considerable variety In the backgrounds of the

qualified observers who rated tha subjects* , Even with this

variety it was fait that the observers bore enough similarity

to be used in this phase of the study. This is due to tha

fast that tha paople with their kinds of qualifications night

represent tha type and range of persons who oould use

teohnlque If It were fully developed and standardised*

TABLB II

OCCUPATION OF PS1S0IS RATIMG ISfMPflSOMX, BKSFOK3IW£Kfc@S OF SUBJECTS A® AM0WT OF. COHfACT. WITH STJBJBOTS II CATEGOKX C

SuMtt% Clas# r . . latad. M ippr'Sfii&i® ,,_fl«i wttfe M l i t i i , r. Rpobl«ffi

ohlldran Juvenile offenders

Unemployed young adults

Hospitalised psychiatric patients

Oariatrio counsalsas

County ehllti worker

County juvenile divi-sion ease worker

Psyehologlst

Psychiatric director of oooupatlonal and recreational therapy

canter gar* la trie group worker

Z ho sirs I'walk 'for J''or mora month®

2$ hours a weak for 3 or eore months

ijr houra a week for l | or more months

Z houra a day* 5 daya a weak for I or mora »onthft

J| hours a weak for 5 or

Saoh of these parsons also aided In tha selection of subjects

thay Fated* To do this they ware asked to seleot from tha

parsons available, the ones that they had worked with tha

longaat.

' She following Instructions were given to each of tha

five people who rated their respeotlve portions of the sub*

jeeta In Category C.

You are about to rat® a number of subjects as to thai# degree of Interpersonal reaponsiveness, Shaft ratlogs Mill lata? b« ocrapared to drawing© which the aubjeota will have dona. The object of thia ooapsi»i-son is to aae if tha subjects will in.aone way project their ova degree of interpersonal reaponaiveness into their drawings. Interpersonal reaponaiveness is de» acribed ass the degree to which a person can auooess-fully respond to others in many and varied situations, thus causing others to increase their positive respon-siveness to. or acceptance of, that person.

You will rate the subjects according to the fol-lowing scale s

5 points - very high Is interpersonal reaponalveness k points » high 1» interpersonal responsiveness 3 points - average in interperaonal responsiveness £ points - low in interpersonal responsiveness 1 point - very low in interpersonal responsiveness

To rate the subjects it is suggested that you follow the procedure listed below,

1. Review all the pertinent records you have for each of the subjects selected for you to rate*

2, interview each of theae subjects and ask tlmm whatever questions you deem necessary to aid you in writing your ratings.

' 3. Question or ask the opinion of others who may be in a position to aid your knowledge of tha subject•« interpersonal responsiveness,

4. Make an outline social history of the subjects, if one Is not readily available, and review this,

5* F*e» the knowledge you have gained and your impressions of tha subjects, rate each of your subjects according to the previously oentioned five point seals*

6« Cheek over your ratings to make sure of de-cisions and then inforn m of your final choioea.

In thia manner the ratings of intsrpersonal responsiveness

mm aade for the sixty-eight subjects in Category C,

For each subject in Category A the number of choioea

received on both eoclonetrio questions was added together

plus one additional point for each nutual choice occurring*

This yielded a choloe-atatus acore for each subject in each

of the five groups* Theae scores enabled all subjecta

35

to be placed ID an ascending order according to their choice-

value within their respective groups.

In Oategory B the subjects war® placed in a descending

order according to thair Social I. fi» aoora on the MMH. the

aualler scores being interpreted as equaling the higher de-

grees of interpersonal responsiveness.

In Category 0 the subjects were placed in an ascending

order according to the rating* they had received along the

five point scale previously described.

In this manner the subjects of ail three categories

received a rating which was, by operational definition, a

measure or ranking of their interpersonal responsiveness.

Next, the "draw-a-group" picture® were placed in order

according to the ranking of the subjects who drew theau

They were then examined at length for characteristics which

night differentiate the aubjeote as to their degree of inter*

personal responsiveness. The results of this examination

were compiled into the evaluating instrument for this atudy,

along with instructions being added. Three persons with

graduate experience in psychology were chosen to use this

Instrument in judging each subject*® degree of Interpersonal

responsiveness by evaluating each subject's drawing. These

three Judges also had some training and experience In the

use of projective techniques and soeloiaetry.

The judges each studied the evaluating instrument for

approximately one and a half hours. Ninety one of the

36

drawings were than shown to them* one at a time, After these

were evaluated a two hour "dinner break" Intervened, The

judges then reviewed the evaluating instrument for another

one-half hear, after which the seoond nlnety~one ploturea

were evaluated,

She evaluating instrument used by the judges is self

explanatory and Incorporates the essential procedure for this

phase of the study,

fhe Evaluating Instrunent, 1. • ,» How to Us# the Experimental "Braw^»Group"~Fro jective Technique

for Measuring Interpersonal Responsiveness

Instructions tm the Judaea

You are about to evaluate a number of drawings uslag the

experimental ndraw«*~groupu projective technique for Judging

interpersonal responsiveness, To do this you will need to

carefully consider the following faotors.

Interpersonal responsiveness is described as the degree

t»o which a person can successfully respond to others in many

and varied situations, thus causing others to increase their

positive responsiveness to, or aoceptance of, that person.

Interpersonal responsiveness can also be thought of as la*

volving a nuasber of other factors such as sensitivity to

othersf a general tendency to interact with people Individ*

anlly or in groupst a person's general choice-value among

others) a lack of interpersonal Isolation)tan ability in inter*

relate meaningfully with numerous persons and that which is

sometimes called social maturity.

3?

The pictures to be judged were all drawn in response to

the state/cent, "draw a group of people", given with very few

other instructions. The judgments you make will be compared

with scclometric data, a true false test of social involvanjont,

or ratings of social interaction. There is a very good chance

that the Hdraw-a-group" technique will with acceptallc accuracy

rate interpersonal responsiveoess, causing a considerable

savings iri tiiae and effort, as well as adding a valuable tool

to those methods of judging this variable. For this reason

your most conscientious effort is requested. The procedure

Mill be as follows;

X* You will carefully study the principles of evaluation

and the jr accompanying check lists. You will keep these with

you while you are judging the pictures so that you o:a$ refer

to them when ever you wish, kh.il© you are studying the mater-

ial you may ask questions concerning clarification of the

terms used,

2. You will next bs given a scoring sheet containing

numbers 1 through 182 which correspond to the numbers in the

upper right hand corner of the drawings. The pictures have

been randomly mixed, so that the crder in which you will see

their: bears: no similarity as to how they should be rated. Be

side each drawing's number on the scoring sheet there is a

blank sptca in which you will place your evaluating score for

that picture, The pictures will be shown to you, one at a tiiae#

38

3# You will judge the pictures according to the fol-

lowing scoring systems

£ points - very high in interpersonal responsiveness

h points * high in interpersonal responsiveness

X points « average in interpersonal responsiveness

2 points - low In interpersonal responsiveness

J, point - very low In Interpersonal responsiveness

ll* Torn may lay aside and return to any picture for

which you would like to postpone evaluation*

You are now asked to give careful attention to the

studying of the principles of evaluation and their accom-

panying eheok lists. Signify when you believe you have

sufficient knowledge of these principles, and we shall then

begin,

Principles of Evaluation

To judge a ndraw-a»group" picture it is necessary to

evaluate from a rather Oestalt or global viewpoint. Judge-

ments should not be made on single or disconnected charac-

teristics but rather on the basis of an integrated pattern.

Some of the pictures will be found to have characteristics

indicating that they could be classified in more than one

category. In these cases one should consider which charac-

teristics are more pronounced or more numerously indicative

of a particular category* thus in some cases the problem of

classifying the picture is one of discovering which set of

39

characteristics outweighs the others. With cartful exami&a*

tion ©f tii® pictures a prepoisdemm« of clues will usually

emerge, indioatiog which categories should be rejected and

which classification should be chosen for each pioture.

'Eha following general faotors will provide the frame-

work toy which to judge the pictures. They are given in

their approximate order of importance. l'he first two general

factors should be thought of as having considerably mora 1®*

portance than the others but not having sufficient strength

to ba.se selections on entirely.

. Degree of lat e rae t i o p.»»M&ny of the drawings will depict

hu»an figures interacting with each other, while others will

not. In general, the greater the decree of Interaction, the

higher a picture should be rated.

The moat common determinants for judging interaction

are the degree and type of conversation probably taking place,

the direction in which the human figures are facing, and what

seems to be going on in the scenap. Drawings in which in-

formal conversation appears to be the major activity occurlng,

usually are to be rated over those where conversation is sup-

ported by other activities, and then these in turn should be

placed higher than scenes in which conversation is only an

adjunct or Is incidental to what is occurlng. The more In-

formal the verbal interaction, the higher the picture should

be rated, except where no verbal interaction is apparent.

These pictures would be rated lowest of all.

J+o

The mora human figures sro drawn fan log each othe ?, the

higher the degree of interaction. Thus, people in & circle

or around a table are rated highly, while those seemingly

willing about are rated less highly, and those all facing in

the 3B.me dire nn would be quite low.

Pictures of social Interaction rate over those of work-

like character, and these are in turn to be rated over those

in which nothing can be determined as probably occurring or

those having a pronounced unrealistic or unnatural quality.

Scenes in which, activity is centered around some object or Ira

which parallel activity is occurring which doesn *t necessarily

call for much verbal interaction are to be rated rathor low.

Degree of role structure,—In the scenes drawn, various

degrees of role structure, ranging from very formal to very

informal, can be observed. In general, the higher ranking

pictures are those in which the human figures are depicted

in situations where the role requirements would be considered

quite flexible. The less flexible or more rigid the role

requirements seem, the lower the picture should be ranked,

except when there are no role requirements evident. These

drawings should be rated lowest of all. Highly structured

scents of a social or recreational nature are to b© ratod

over those of a work situation.

Richness of content.--A3 a general rule, the richor the

content a drawing has, the higher it should be rated. This

it,I

Is especially true when the human fig tiro a or their facial

features so ex,) to have absorbed a majority of the subjects

efforts, However, stick figures do constitute an except ion

to the rule, 2hey# of tan with minimal facial features, are

to be found in ull categories.

Higher ranked pictures have a greater completeness,

mora detail, easily identified. and numerically greater dif-

ferentiation in their drawn descriptions of age, dress, sixe,

and part icularly sax, lis low the a a are pictures In which the

background, and in soma cases the foreground, content is acre

detailed than the husiao figures, Pictures which are to be

ranked in the lower categories have a narked poverty of con-

tent, This is exhibited by hollow body outlines, a sexless

quality, and a lack of clothing, hair or other details; or

an object may occupy the foreground with the human figures

appearing in the background, and in others only the face s

are shown, leaving out the body entirely#

Facial and postural expression,—Drawings which show

human figures in rigid or stiff positions rank lower than

those of a more natural or realistic posture. On the whole

pictures of people sitting down are to be ranked over those

of people standing, except when the people shown are sitting

in rows. Drawings showing people in rows, standing or sitting,

usually rank lower than those which show the figure in al-

most any other position.

I|2

The mors figures differ fron each other Ik postur# and

faolal expression, the higher the picture containing aueh

figures should be rated. Postural expression versus postural

rigidity and saaeness is particularly helpful in differen*

tlating between drawings containing stick figure**

The greater the faeial expressions'.are shown, the higher

the ploture should be ranked, except where everyone has a

similar snlle* Inolusion of sorae obviously frowning or an-

gry people along with others of a different expression

raises the status in which the ploture should be ranked. A

lack of obvious facial expression giving an emotional content,

a laok of at least one full faee view, a sameness of facial

features, and pictures showing little or no faolal features,

exoept for some stick figure drawings, should all be rated

rather low.

fiwtbeg and type of twang fishes,••Pictures which in-

clude very few or very siany human figures are to be ranked

quite low| crowds, audlenoes, nobs, etc* ranking lowest of

all. • Scenes showing aore than one sex, indicated by several

details, rank over one-sex pictures, which in turn rank over

pictures where the sex is indeterminable* Pictures where the

majority of human figures ar« of the SSM approximate age are

ranked above those showing figures of varying ages* Drawings

showing a deainant figure with a najority of obviously

younger figures are to be ranked still lower but not as low

i*3

as drawings In whioh age is indistinguishable• Scenes in-

cluding aniznal figures are not usually ranked in the lower

categories.

uraphie and structural .feadica.tor& {size, placement, line

strength, and forrc, syimaetry and perspective)#—5?hie category

should be considered lass definitive than the preceding ones*

but it is helpful ID DECIDING borderline problems,

ft. use of over half the space available is characteristics

of pictures ranking in the higher categories* figures whioh

are very small (lasc than ooe aod a half inches), or very

large (inor© than six incut*s> arc usually to be ranked in the

lower categories.

Picturee largely occupying the center of the available

space are to be ranked over those primarily drawn in corners,

although the upper left hand corner drawing is sosaetixaea

highly ranked. Pictures in the lower half of a page reay

often be classified below those drawn in the upper half.

Pictures drawn with light skstchy pano11 marks and those

with unusually heavy solid lines are to be ranked lower than

others.

Pictures that as a whole have a syrametrioal quality are

ranked over those that appear out of balance or one-sided.

Drawings having indications of good perspective, proper

size relationships, and a quality of depth, rank over those

of a seemiugly flat nature.

lik * ' T r

Characteristics of Scoring Categories; 5Sec¥ List *

The following oheck list should not fee thought of as

all inclusive or completely definitive in evaluating "draw-a-

group" pictures. The H a t should toe used only as an aid to#

and oot as a substitute for, Judging the ploturea on a global

basis* .Remember that most plot urea will have the character-

istics of several categories and no picture will have all the

characteristic® of any o m category# The following charac-

teristics can be thought of as being listed in their approxi-

mate order of iaportanoe for each category*

A. Characteristics of pictures to be judged "very high"

($ points)i

1. People sitting around a table or in a circular

arrangement.

2. Soenea in whioh informal conversation is the only

major activity possible.

3. Scenes depicting the most flexible of role require-

ments*

ij. Fairly rich in detail, except when stick figures

are included.

f>. A variety of emotion shown in facial expressions

and body postures.

6. Soenes including people of both sexes who are ap-

parent equal© in age, social position and «ia@,

7. Scenes with four to eight human figures.

kS

8. Pictures oriented ID the upper center of til® page#

well balanced, symmetrical, and with son® p«rsp@cti¥e

B* Characteristics of picture® to be judged "high* (It points);

I. Pictures of people faolng each other.

2* Drawings In which conversation would be a major part

of the activity.

3. Seen#® depleting a fairly loose role structure or

fairly high in role requirement flexibility.

Ij,, Scenes in which people might be meeting each other

for the first time.

5. Fairly detailed figures and background content.

6. Scenes in which sow© or all of the people arc seated.

7. Human figures in a variety of postural positions.

8. Faces with all major facial features and with an

apparent expression on their faces* except when all

have a similar smile, let applicable to stick figures.

9. Drawings In which the human figures appear t® be.

approximate equals, although not necessarily middle

class typical Americans,

10. Between three and ten human figures*

II. A use of over half the spaoe available.

12* Scenes oriented in the center or slightly to the

upper left of the available space*

13. A quality of completeness, except when stick fig-

ures are included.

1 6

11}, F igure* one and a half to s i x inches in height* .

15, Scenea with a comic quality.

16, F igures in home-like s i t u a t i o n s ,

C, C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of drawings t o be Judged "average" (3

p o i n t s ) :

1* Pictures of situations where the role requi rements

a r e semiforxaally de f ined or moderately s t r u c t u r e d and

adhered to, such as in parties* dances* o u t i n g s , etc.

2 , Figures more than t h r e e and a h a l f inches in h e i g h t

i f wel l drawn*

3. Picture® of people engaged in table games where the

type of conversation is fairly well defined and likely

t o be somewhat U n i t e d ,

k* People seemingly meeting or greeting each other.

5, Scenes where the f i g u r e s are h igh ly a c t i v e and p e r -

haps comical in appearances,

6 , F igures which have mild but obvious i n e q u a l i t i e s in

age, status, height, physical build, attractiveness, etc,

7, P i c t u r e s in which the human f i g u r e s take up more

space than other o b j e c t s in the scene.

8, Scenes in which conversa t ion i s supported by o t h e r

activities suoh as food, music, games, etc,

9, Drawings cen te red anywhere along a v e r t i c a l mid l ine

of the space available,

10, Separate c o l l e c t i o n s of people seemingly r e p r e s e n t i n g

different noninteracting groups.

k7

11, Highly detailed backgrounds,

120 See a*b including adults, children and pats.

D* Characteristics of drawings to be judged "low" (2 points)s

1* Scenes depioting situations where vol• r*4ulr«MMt«

are well defined or formalized with only a little flexi-

bility allowed*

2* Human figures with ill defined facial features, or

unvarying facial expressions,

3* Figuree faoing toward no particular or common center

of interest.

Somewhat rigid appearing body positions.

5. A poverty of detail and content.

6* Figures participating in competitive sports.

?* ; Figures with poorly formed body parts*

8. ' No more than two human figures, or two adults and

on« child, and no other live figures*

9* : Scenes showing human figures of only one sex*

10. drawing® ©entered or restricted to a corner of the

page, especially fee lower corners.

11* Scenes showing all figures facing the viewer (full

facie views}*

12* Use of less than one-third the space available.

13* Situations where the focus of attention • is on ob-

jects rather than on people*

111* Scenes where inanimate objects have a predominance

of else and emphasis over human figures*

1*8

15# Scenes ehowing physical work to®log carried on by

the prorainanfc human figures#

16* Figures having a transparent or hollow-like treat-

ment*

17, Street scenes where people seem to be milling about,

not obviously doing anything*

18* Scenes vrbere children out number adults, if both

are shown*

19# Figures engaged in parallel but not necessarily

interacting activities*

20* Slightly sketchy or rather heavily drawn lines*

£* Characteristics of drawings to be Judged "very loww

<1 point)i

1* Drawings including large audience®, crowds, raobs ©r

other large groups of people all doing essentially the

same thing, especially if drawn in rows,

2* A lack of facial details in human figures.

3* Figures depicted only by their heads or face®, and

bodies without limbs*

i|* Human figures ail facing In the same direction,

especially if seated and some facing the backs of others *

heads,

5* Figures drawn so that they appear to be at a consider-

able distance from the foreground of the picture*

6* Figures whose sex is indeterminate or whose sex

U9

differentiation is shown only by the length and style of

hair. Small figures one inch or leaa in height.

8# Five or more people assuming a virtually similar poa»

ture# eapeolally if unreallstleally rigid.

9. Figures all having a similar and oonaplouously large

srolle or grin.

10# figures which are out off by the border of the page.

11# Faoeleas figure® or head®, except with etiok fig-

ures*

12. Very aketohily drawn human figurea, eapeeially in

the head and face area.

13. Pioture* showing people or items seemingly discon-

nected or out of context, as if more than one scene had

been drawn.

lit. Himaa figure® apparently without hair, excepting

stiok figures.

15. Lass than three or more than ten human figures with

no obvious Interaction occurring*

16. Asymmetrical pictures poorly formed and lacking any

perspective.

Evaluation

To test for reliability the judges' evaluations were

statistically treated for correlations, each one with the

other two. To test for validity various correlations were

obtained between the Judges' evaluations and the other data

50

previously mentioned. The results of this evaluation are

given and discussed at length In the nmxt chapter.

CHA F r a n s i Buimm

X# i t e l i i i f e f e a , itf* G r o a t « n d Q e o r g a S c t e l f t g t r » e l * l i » M l p | E I M i s i » i a i M & M M 'mSmM m

# » » % ! » « t • X % C # 7 7 •

2 t i * w * 6 S # # " A . , o e i f e i i * & . r.**U f o r fci* • 1 o f

4i» £ P * 1**1% *vi* 4.|| XXX ( F t b r u a i ? *

3 . D r s i t * * U * U £ , a i K i & • H* M M i £ 1 C « . t M e i 8 £ f l g g o t i 8 a « l L w a M ft|iiri«-«i:;-oll»# U f t l v m i t y e i ' r

ftwli'Sy" i f l S ' ' » f

k m a # ft, m o u *f» w H e & l o l « s » l i n g # M n i . | l , i 3 M i l e . .

5 * f t e r « k « # l i t i i l p A . » t m - « < & « « « » i w V a y l i i l W « M £ | £ » t i « 8 # f A b n o m a i . H f Q M l t t o t % I p l i f e t ' l i t M f t e

f j w i C i S ^ r i f t T i T j u T a s tt»u . i i k i i » » j # * t T ¥ l 5 f 5 v »

5 1

Qmnm iv

RESULTS A m DISOUSSIO*

Tasting of %im Hypothesis

In Chapter One It was hypothesised that graphlo respon*

oea to the stiHwlue "draw a group of people" would yield

valid and reliable of interpersonal responsive-

ness. Examples of tha drawings ara given to the Appendix,

To teat tha raIlability of the measurements gained by

the methods described la Chapter Three, the separate sets of

picture evaluations oads by the three judges were correlated

one with another using the Pearson pa?oduot~znen*nt coefficient

correlation (l# 2). The ooefficlent of correlation between

the evaluations of judges A and B was .66 with a standard

deviation of .<ty| between the evaluations of Judges A and C

It was .73 with a standard deviation of .03; and between the

evaluations of judges B and C the correlation was .73 with a

standard deviation of .03* Tha ®e*n of these correlations la

.71 with the mean of the standard deviations being .03. These

figures are Interpreted as meaning that there is a substantial

relationship between the judges' separate evaluations of in-

terpersonal responsiveness. It Is therefore thought that for

this stage of test development, sufficient reliability does

exist and oan be thought of as supporting the hypothesis

52

53

111® procedure to test the validity of the "draw-a-group"

projective technique, is given la the following statements#

Each drawing*a three numerical evaluations were averages! to

give a ffieao judgement of each subject's estimated degree of

interpersonal responsiveness. These means were then cor-

related with the other measurement# of interpersonal respon-

siveness. The previously described Pearson product-moment

coefficient of correlation provided the statistical method

for treating the data. Table III gujaraarlse© these findings.

In Category A of Table III It oan be seen that the

predictive significance of the test seems fairly high for

the Preteen Club and the Civil Air Patrol, an adolescent

group* The validity of the technique with the young adults

in the Social and Career Club, m well as the somewhat older

adult church school couples* class, is apparently fairly

substantial»

Tho low correlation of .25 found with the older adults

belonging to the Golden Fellowship is difficult to explain.

This is especially so when considering the geriatric coun*»

•sites in Category C, whose coefficient of correlation is

measured at .?U» Froia all that was apparent the Golden

Fellowship was an active, well established group with a high

level of Interaction among the members. Reviewing all known

factors, the cause of the difference between this correlation

and the others Is not apparent. It is possible that a number

of unknown variables common to older people such as arthritis,

%

TABLE 111

VALID IT ST CORRELATIONS 01 THE KXPiSHIMENTAL wJ)R&W*•A~G•SO'{JP,,

PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUE ?0R INTERPERSONAL HB8P0WSIVSHESS

Category A, Normal: Correlations between ifa&ns of Judges*

Group w w w m* fflr

"Bdoffiottni of Oorr«l*tioo

S aiaA&ri. Deviation

ftptteea dub Cifll Air Patrol Squadron Social and Career Club Adult 3ou.pl<3b church school class Golden fellowship

Moan

.88

.81 • 71 .11 .as

#0? •08 • 18 • OS *23

ftptteea dub Cifll Air Patrol Squadron Social and Career Club Adult 3ou.pl<3b church school class Golden fellowship

Moan •-, , - • - § £ - — —

Category B# Mixed: Correlations between Subjaota1 Sooras on

Til# Social Introversion introversion Scale of the MMPI And Means of the Jud»e a1 Evaluations

Group Coefficient of Correlation

Standarct Deviation

Stt1a'|«o%s iaaftl wtlnfE© Social !•£• Seal# , «... fM,

Category 0, Clinicali Correlations between Numerical Ratings &!?«a by Qualified Observers and Means

Of th® Judaea* Evaluation®

Sroy® Soar f ie jumt of Correlation

Standard D0VlAtl0»

ProbisiB o&ilren Juvenile offenders Obeaployed young adults Hospitalised psychiatric patients Seriatrio eounselves

Mean

• oj .Tk .91 .f8 .fii

.15

.10

.05

.01 ..•M

ProbisiB o&ilren Juvenile offenders Obeaployed young adults Hospitalised psychiatric patients Seriatrio eounselves

Mean .80 .09

Mean Correlation and Standard Deviation of the Means

XU W « » n » K V * ' oeij ieieni of 'Standard! Group Correlation Deviation

Total mean of the oatogorical • 6b . .12 mean correlations • 6b . .12

55

poor hearing, recent death of a e w o a friend, etc, may have

oombined to affect this measurement, but again, this is not

known.

The coefficients of correlation in Category A are inter*

preted as supporting the hypothesis with the exception of the

not just d i s c u s s e d .

In Category B of Table III only a moderate relationship

seems to exist between the mean® of the judges* ratings and

the aeores on the Social. Introversion Extroversion S e a l s of

the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory* th® oorre**

lation being ,l+5» It is possible that sooial introversion

and extroversion as measured by the MHPI is not quit® so sim-

ilar to interpersonal responsiveness as was originally thou^it#

nevertheless* a. positive correlation does exist, although

this measurement is interpreted as providing only mild sup*

port for the hypothesis.

The results shown in Category G of Table III apparently

demonstrate a narked relationship between the neans of the

judgerf evaluations and the ratings given by qualified ob-

servers# The oorrelation of ,63 for problem children is

somewhat lower than the others in the category, possibly due

to the fact that some of th® ohildren were oonsidered quite

emotionally disturbed and others mentally retarded*

The oorrelations concerning juvenile offenders and geri-

atric counselees are interpreted as markedly supporting th©

hypothesis. The high correlation of *91 concerning the

£6

chronically unemployed young adults is similarly interpreted.

According tc the qualified observers of this particular group,

tale rather high relationship may be a function of the almost

uniformly low ratings these subjects tend to receive, regard-

less of the measuring device.

The coefficient of correlation concerning hospitalized

psychiatric patient* ia surprisingly high, being *98* For

subjects in this category the Mdraw-a-group" technique 39ens

to do quite well« Thia high aeasureraent nay be possible

because psychlatrio patients seem to produce the most clear*

cut differences, as well as what are apparently obvious ex-

tremes in the drawing of a group of people« Then again, this

correlation nay be influenced by the fact that there are only

twelve subjects in the category, and that the qualified ob-

server who rated these subjects also helped to choose then

for the experiment*

The nean ooef fie lent of correlation for Categories A, B,

and C, thus concerning all 182 subjects, is ,6k* This is

interpreted as aeaalmg « fairly substantial relationship does

exist between the "draw-a~group" projective technique and the

rae as urease nt of interpersonal responsiveness. Therefore, the

hypothesis is considered to be sufficiently supported to the

extent that further investigations of the technique are

merited*

5?

Purtli*r flutings

If th« seventy-eight subjects la Category A can ba coo- ..

sidered as a sample of tha normal population and the subject*

Itt Category c a representation of tha clinical population, •

then a partial co»parlson of the technique'a effectiveness

with these two groups is possible, This comparison is by

nature insufficient in that Category A Involves aocioawfcric

status while Category C incorporated ratings by observers.

Hsvertheless, it la felt that in a general way this compari-

son m y b® informative.

The BMi&n coefficient of correlation for the groups in

Category A, JL. j*. normal, is *68 and for those in Category

C, 1., ®_# clinical, Is .80. This would seem to indicate

that the technique might be better adapted for use among

clinical groups. However, if the relatively low correlation

for the Golden Fellowship is, for some unknown reason, mla~

leading and therefore can be ignored, the mean correlation

for Category A becomes .79 and thus essentially equal to

Category C«s mean correlation of .80. It might be expected

that various clinical groups would demonstrate more sharply

defined differentiations due to their probable extremes of

behavior and psychological makeup. Certainly the findings

for tbs psychiatric j*tl«ot» in this study could b« said to

support this logic• Therefore, it is concluded that the

ndraw-a-group" technique shows prozslses as a predictor of

Interpersonal responsiveness among clinical groups and a

58

more uncertain promise Tor* oonnal or nonclinical groups. The

thirty six subjects its Category 3 ware not used ia this com-

parison, because a ewe of them would fail into the clinical

classification and others into the oorsml. This is due to

the occurrence that aoate were being tested with the lgf.Fl for

clinical reasons, while others were tested for vocational or

general personality assessments, Uo way of dividing these

subjeots was possible.

It would naturally be expected that the "draw-a-group"

projective technique xaight have more validity for certain

age groups than for others. Sable XV shows the mean coef-

ficient of correlations by age groups as compiled from

Categories A and 0# These relationships can only be inter-

pretive in the most general sense, due to the disproportion-

ately large percentage of subjects in the clinioal class,

and the different instrument! used which were correlated

with the ndraw-a-grouptt technique. The thirty-six subjects

in Category 3 have been excluded because of a widely spread

age range• Two age range rows begin with age eighteen*

There ia a division here because the eighteen to twenty-four

age group consists of unmarried subjects and has a mean age

of twenty, while the eighteen to fifty-five group is of mar-

ried and divorced subjects with a mean age of thirty three*

The correlation figures in Table IV follow what would

appear to be a logical progression. The degree of correla-

tion increases as the mean age rises into the area® of mature

59

TABLE IV

MSAI COBBSLmONS BY AGE GROUPS AS COMPILED FROM CATEGORIES A AND 0

Age Rang® in Xeara

Mean Age lumber of Subject®

' 'lean® '"of "the"' Coefficient of Correlation

"Means' of iSa Standard Deviation

7-12 10 26 • 76 • 11

13-17 15 39 .78 .09

18-24 20 18 .61 .12

18-55 33 36 .88 .05

63*»88 11,, 25 »S2 .19

adulthood, than fall® with advanced age. It @@#ms reasonable

to suppose that th® subjects who have not yet fully reached

maturity and those of a declining maturity would do less

wail than those In th® middle groups, who oaa tea assumed to

have better functioning physiological and neurological sys-

tem®.

; Slues the practical use of a measuring device m&y be

largely affected by the attitudes and practice# of those who

us® it, the following information is included in th© results.

After the three judge® had evaluated th® entire 102

drawings, they were asked to freely eensment on their exper-

ience. All three judgea agreed that they had the greatest

difficulty in discriminating between pictures on which they

thought that they might use the evaluative scores 2 Clow)

or (average). They also agreed that the easiest drawings

60

to evaluate were those which ssesed that they should be

evaluated with a £ (very high). Next to this the pictures

evaluated with a 1 (very lo*} seemed easiest to judg*, and

this was followed by the us# of evaluation (high)# Two

of the judges said that the confusion they experienced be-

tween using score a of £ and iy, and 1 ami 2 was about equal.

One of the judges, who had advanced traising ita soci-

ology, suggested that ths instrument for evaluation seemed

to have a cultural bias is favor of "white, Anglo-Saxon,

Protestants of the higher socio-economic strata"• On ques-

tioning the other two judges, they agreed that this could

be quite possible. The amaple did include two Negroes and

four Latin Americans, all in Category Q, J.. clinical

groups rated by qualified observers. On examining the var-

ious measurements pertaining to them, it wag found that they

had all received scores of £ (average) or lessj however, the

sample is believed to bs too small to be interpreted.

Concerning the "draw-a-group" projective technique, the

three judges all consented favorably on its ease of use, the

shortness of tine involved in evaluating a drawing, and

other miscellaneous advantages that it might h&ve over other

methsds* fhe probability of a high degree of accuracy was

doubted by the judges. All three agreed that the evaluative

instrument was in need of further development. It was also

suggested that the interpretations of the technique should

be expanded to take in more than just a gross measurement of

61

interpersonal responsiveness. 'lbs greatest c r i t ic i sm cen-

tered around the poss ib i l i ty of ms>j misuse. If the technique

were to be used without the aid of other l&struae&tsy i t was •

feared that misjudgements aod inaccuracy would be preaainent.

Ac analysis of perfect agreement between the three

judge a i s given i» Table V along with the spread of th« mean

evaluations. In the t r i p l e column en t i t l ed "Mean I t a lua -

t ionsM , the range r e f e r s to mean scores taken from the thres

fABLS V

SFEMO OF MMI EVALUATIONS COJiPA&BD WIfl 11118?® AKD FSR GS» OF EVALUATIONS HAVING JftSRPBCT AQ-BSSMBlf

Mean Sv&luatiofeg Perfect Agreement

„ tow I M t e r Per Cent B*Bg* Htamber P«r 0«nt f#ry mjgk

(S.6~s7©) Higjh

T3.6-4.3) Average

(2.o-3.3) Low

(1.6-2.3) Very low

(1.0-1.3)

9

IS

U 6©

29

4 .9

9.9

36.3

32.9

15.9 ..

Tew'mpT"' '

Kl^h

Average (2.6-3.3)

Low (1.6*2.3)

Very lair (1.0-1.3)

5

2

15

23

—-12.

55.5

11.1

22.7

38.3

- - JmLiiIL .-

r,Am^ ,IH Total 57 • J U L .

judges» ra t ings of the drawings* The ranges are constructed

so that they conform to the f ive point system used fo r mafcing

the evaluations. The number of drawings having a mean score

within the ranges l i s t ed are given next. The table shows

62

that the greater number of pictures are evaluated In the

rang# centering around 2 (low) and J, {average}# The rang®

listed as "very low" contains more than does "high" and

"very high" corcbined. This is probably due to the large

number of subjects in Category C, jl.®« clinical groups.

These subject® would probably be expected to yield a large

number of low score®, thus weighting the scoring pattern

io the direction of the lower evaluative figures. This con-

figuration of scores along the range can also be compared to

the findings of many soclometric studies, JU_ jt* the distri-

butions are often found to be soiaewhat py ram idle al or numeri-

cally incremental from high status to average or low status,

thereby being skewed positively (3).

The triple column listed under the heading "Perfect

Agreement" in Table V gives the number of perfect agreements

between the three Judges within each scoring range. There-

fore, it can be seen that there was perfect agreement among

the Judges on 55.5 per cent of the pictures in the "very

high" range. This is compatible with what the judges had

stated concerning the ease of giving certain pictures a very

high evaluation* Only 11.1 per cent of the drawings in the

"high" range obtained perfect agreement among the three -

Judges, while 22,7 per cent of the pictures in the "average"

rang® did ®o, Perfect agreement existed among the judge*

for 3B»3 per cent of the picture® in the "low" range and

kl.k P«r cent of the pictures in the "vary low" range. The

63

most salient interpretation emerging from these findings

is that it seems to be easier to judge the extremes of the

distribution than it is to Judge the pictures falling into

the center areas. Again, this ia roughly compatible with

what the judges stated.

Sine® it is probable that in the field the greatest

concern of potential users- of a projective each as this would

be with those in the extremes, the technique does not seem

to be devalued by these findings. Also, this would tend to

agree with the thought that the technique would be more use-

ful with clinical rather than normal populations.

Another factor about the use of this instrument would

be the question of Improvement with use. Ninety-one, or half,

of the drawings had been presented to the judges before a two

hour break and the remaining ninety-one drawings after the

break. Perfect agreement occurred among 21,9 per cent of

the evaluations given to the first ninety-one drawings and

among I4.0,6 per cent of those given to the second ninety-one

drawings. This represents an 18,7 per cent increase in per-

fect agreement among the three judges. In observing the raw

data it w»s noted that the rise in agreements seemed to be

gradually and rather consistently incremental. An interpre-

tation which oan be made is that reliability should improve

with practice and, in this area at least, a person*s use of

the technique should improve with experience.

£4

Since tli® purpose of this investigation wm to provide

an exploratory study, and s i l ica the number and strength of

possible Intervening variables was unknown, a mora elaborate

statistical treatment; was thought to be inappropriate for ,

this stage of test development.

In summary, It was found that the reliability measure-

ments were acceptable, the mean coefficient of correlation

among the judges* evaluations being #71« Validity coefficients

of correlations were sufficiently positive, with the except

tion of the correlation for the Golden Fellowship. The mean

correlation for Categories A, 3, and C# thus concerning all

182 subjects, was The mora appropriate mean correlations

for judges * evaluations and the respeotive measurements of

the categories were these: sooioaoetrically measured normals

comprising Category A, ,68j M8PI measured normals and abnor-

mal* comprising Category B, .l|$% abnormal* rated by qualified

observers comprising Category C, ,80* One method of inter*

preting the data would suggest that the ndraw-a-group" pro*

jective would be of more use with clinical than with normal

populations, although in certain ways the technique seems

equally useful for both groups* Some of the evidence Indi-

cates that children and older adults are less validly measured

than are others, but this is not conclusive. Evidence also

indicates that the subjects who can be evaluated as "very

high", now", and "very low" are more easily judged than

are those evaluated "higif and "average1* in interpersonal

6>

responsiveness. In commenting on their impressions the thr®«

judges all agreed that the technique was easily and quickly

used, although it seamed to need various improvements. The

increasing occurrence of perfect agrearuent among the judges,

as their experience mounted, shows that improvement in

reliability should be expected as a user of the technique

accumulates practice.

These findings are interpreted as supporting the hypoth-

esis, and so it can be said that there is reason to believe

that graphic responses to the stimulus, "draw a group of

people", will yield valid and reliable xneasurecionts of inter-

personal responsiveness. Further investigation into this

experimental projective is apparently merited, and it is

assumed that the "draw-i>-group" projective technique holds

the possibility of being developed into a valuable psycho-

logical tool.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

I, Guilford, J, P## Fuodaraental StattatlOB In Payohology and Education. New Tork. MeGraw-HllTHBodfe Co..

T&6, 135-153. 2# Lindquiat, 1-, F, a A First Couree in Statistic®* Cambridge.

Massachusetts S E T S l w i O T e T W a 'Kli2, 167-171*.

3* Morthw&y, Mary L. , A Primer of Soolomafcrsr. Toronto* Canada, University of Toronto Preaa, 1952, 8-27 •

66

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

It was hypothesized that graphic responses to the stimu-

lus, "draw a group of people" would yield valid and. reli-

able measurements of interpersonal responsiveness.

One hundred and eighty-two subjects each drew a group

of people. A measurement of soolometric status was made for

seventy-eight of these subjects who belonged to organised

groups and were termed normal. Social Introversion Extro-

version soores were obtained from MHPI profiles for thirty-

six subjects who were called mixed normal and clinical. For

sixty-eight subjects termed olinloal, rating® of interper-

sonal responsiveness were made by qualified observers.

The subjects1 drawings were examined at length to see

if oriterla oould be found which would enable the pictures

to be differentiated as to their degree of interpersonal

responsiveness,, this factor being operationally defined by

the three measurements mentioned above. The criteria dis-

covered were compiled into an evaluative instrument which

was used by three Judged to rank the 182 drawings along a

five point scale for interpersonal responsiveness.

To test for reliability each judge*© evaluation was cor-

related with the other two. The mean of these three corre-

lations for reliability was ,71.

67

68

To test; for validity tha sociometric measurements, the

SociaX 1, E. scoreaf and the ratings of interpersonal respon-

siveness were each correlated with the J*dgee* evaluations.

The mean of these three correlations, was

A comparison between the clinical and normal categories

proved inconclusive, although aoiae of the evidence indicated

that the "draw-a-group" technique was more adapted for use

with clinical populations. The interpretation or certain of

the findings indicated that the technique might be leas use-

ful with children and older adults than with other ag© groups,

but this was also inconclusive.

After the judges had evaluated the drawings they mad®

comments concerning the technique. These are incorporated

in the results of the study.

A review of the literature revealed a poverty of infor-

mation directly related to this area of drawing analysis.

However, a number ©f studies do have bearing on the problem

surveyed by this paper.

It was concluded that the hypothesis was sufficiently

supported and that this exploratory study shove that further

investigation into the experimental "draw-a-group" projective

technique is merited.

APPENDIX

EXAMPLES OP THE "DRAW-A-GROUP" PICTURES

PRECEDED EX SXPLAHATOH3T NOTES

Bach of the drawings shown received evaluations which

were in substantial agreement among the three judges and with

which the mean evaluations of the judges agreed with the

validity criteria. Drawings In, 2n, 3», l$n, and $xs are ex-

amples taken from Category A# representing normal subjects

belonging to organised groups. Drawings lc, 2c, 3c, 1*9, and

5o are ©xaiaples taken from Category C, representing subjects

belonging to olinioal populations.

Pictures la and lc are example® of drawing® evaluated JL,

very low, Drawing In was done by a thirty-three year old

male member of the couples* church school class, and drawing

lc by a fifty-ftv® year old female hospitalised psyohiatrio

patient,

Pictures 2n and 2c represent drawings evaluated 2, low.

Drawing 2n was made by a sixty-nine year old female member

of the Golden Fellowship, and drawing 2c by a fourteen year

old ®ale juvenile offender.

Pictures 3n a»<l 3c were evaluated 2# average. Drawing

3n was done by a thirteen year old female member of the Civil

Air Patrol, and drawing 3c by a twelve year old female problem

child.

69

To

Pictures i|n and i|C are examples of drawings evaluated ]j,#

high* Drawing I4.0 was produced by a twenty-three year old

male icember of the Social and Career Club, and drawing I4C by

a twenty-nino year old male hospitalized psychiatric patient.

Pictures 5>& and 5c represent drawings evaluated very

high* Drawing $n was made by a thirty-nine year old male

member of the couples1 church school olass, and drawing i>c

by a fifteen year old male juvenile offender.

'C ? — ; ; - v ^ ^ < - ® < E > * 2 * <2» < * « £ * «T7> * £ & ' ^ y m i

£ ^ > < £ > <q> C£» c?r ^ «?=> TS <£*> O <p> s o s a» <-> «*> *?> <^> «^», < - civ ^

O <35 ® O CD « E - ' ® € & < * « , 0 > w O < £ > CO « S » O

O a> & * » ^ ^ S > /gjr•£»-.*» £> <& <K> o » « » " » • • » $ . ' -gj, « a ' c a

£ > o O ' O ' O ' C 5 O O © o < 0 C P < 3 > O C D <*> c S -

v C E P o t S J O ~ c x © ' £ 5 ^ a s t > < 2 5 s o o o < 2 > < s > 0 c s < 2 >

< Z > r ? Z Z > O O © C P £ D ' < 2 ? © O 0 . 0 < 2 >

' < * >

£jg© ©_m©Q

7 X

c 3

C r;A 3 f

i*.J - w » 4 ^

f n s r " r , " > S t - * f ' V i ^ y Vfes )

. . . I A , C 3 X V -^ ^ ; - S '

, . ( J 1 i > / 1 V - ^

fttfiufe* ."ia>'w iV r, Miwt -a AJ • j*"i f

D r a w i n g I n

\

Drawing Ic

K,

Drawing 2B

71+

n

Drawing 2c

J i \1 -. vi

; *-u;: •••-'-•

"I'AtfXW*

Drawing 30

• 11 *»P"

111 0 r\

/ I i. / I w W ^

V> \ %,yj J

76

/

Drawing 3c

!

/

Drawing !±n

73

ay****-*

!

Drawing Ijc

r

Drawing 5&

30

Q -e, ~ j Jg[a>

Drawing 5e

BXBLIOGBAPHST

Book*

Abfc, Lawtscs 1, and Leopold fiell&k, editora, Projective r» law York, Grove Preaa, Inc., iV!50.

Bonney, Merl I#i and Baoeo, Iso*#

Baalish la Ma® at log. Boston, Alljm

Bonney, Marl fi* and Bich&rd S* Haas&pleiaan, Paraonal-Social revaluation geohalqnea, Washington JD, .gy.BgrapSM AlssgAfg#* u Applied Haeearch in fcjducation, Inc., 1962,

Calverton, Saaauel Bertrand, Children1a fhroagh. Drawing* Baltimore, lapyllal,, SiTll«e aaa f ilHisuo# #

Dahlstrow, W. Grant and George Schlager We I ah., An MMP1 Handbook: A Guide to H®« JLn Clinical I!gao$iot<' and WaiilreS^ MTnQ#ap©li5#"^tt#r8«yoFKiQMS6$6 P ess*

Drake. Lewis 1. and 1# R« Oetting, An KMPX Codebook for ~,ounaelora» Minneapolis, University of Minnesota frees.

Good, Pafcriola King-Ellison and John P. Brantner, The Physician»a Gulc to the MHgI« Minneapolis, defityeity ©r ifiaaiaHa Press, Inc. ,"T9tl

Goodenough, Florence L., Meaawyent of Intelligence jfefc Dr'Wl- i xoiucara* iwlfi m®k$ 19&d«

Guilford, 3m P., I Statlit.loa In Pfyahglfgr agd Mwatlon/jfei* Ywk. feQww-HlU tbog C©., 1§|&. ~

Sreaue. Jdward B., M, £ » & The Odyaaey Preaa, 19tyl«»

, 3ew York,

Hilgard, 2psi»tS.# Introduotfoc Haroomrt, Brace and Co.,

Hilgard, iSrneat 1,, the or la a of T Cent«ry-Crofts, lso«, Tf5f."

?>yobsl.frgy« New York,

Maw York Appleton-

81

82

Kadia, Asya L.t n Flnge r-Pa int ing as a Projective Technique,"

Promotive Psychology. edited by Lawrence 1. Abt and u >opold jlWllak, Hew York, Grove Press, Inc., 1950.

Levy, Sidney, "Figure Drawing as a Projective Test," Projective Psychology, edited by Lawrence E, Abt nod £i«opold Bie llafe, Sew I or k, Grove Press, Inc., 1950.

Llbo. Lester M., Measuring Group Coheaiveness, Ann Arbor, Miohlg.n, Unlveraity o^HIchigan,' MS}.

Lindqulst, £. P., A First Course in Statistics, Cambridge, MassachusettsJ flie Rlverside^Trelis, I%Z.

Maohover, Karen, Personality Projection in the Drawing of the Human Figure, Sprlogflaid, Illinois, Charles C. fEoinas, I9W.

Marks, Philip A, and willlan Socman, Actuarial Description of Abnormal Peraonality i An Atlas Ydr tlse""wl'ih tbeMMPI, Baltimore, Maryland, Williams and Wllkins Co., 1963.

Mursell, James L., Psychological Testing, Kew York, Longmans, Green and Co., 1949,

Northway, Mary L«, A Primer of Socloiaetry. Toronto, Canada, University of Toronto Prass,

Ruch, Floyd L., Psychology and Life, Dallas, Texas, Scott, Foresman an«f Co j, 1953 •

Stuart, Gilbert, Understanding Children in School. Syracuse, New York, C. W. Eiardeen Co., 18^3.

Woltmann, Adolf G., "The Bender Vlsual-ftotor Geetalt Test," Projective Psychology, edited by Lawrence E, Abt and tedpoid'Bellak, iew York, Grova Press, Inc., 1950*

Articles

Berzaan, Sidney and Julius Laffal, "Body Type and Figure Drawing, Journal of Clinical Psychology, IX (October, 1953), 368^?C '

Brake, Lewis 1., BA Social I.E. Scale for the MMPI," Journal of Applied Psychology. XXX (February, 191+6)

03

Lawton, Marola J* and Lse Sschrsst, "Flgurs Drawings by Young Boys Fr@» Fathar^Prsssnt and Fathsr-Abssot Hoass," Jeurial of CI laical Psychology* XVIII (July* *962)*

Lshnar, Osorge and Erie K. Gundsrson, "RailabiXlty of Graphic Indies• i. • Pr.j«tl« T«8|," jWrolJiE PaycholoCT. fill (April, 1952), 125-120.

Nltsohs, Carl J* and William Tho», "Ohildr«n*a Llk# and Disllk® Drawings,* Journal of Fro .loot lv« TaohPlottas, XXIII (March, 1959), 7«*

Pflaun# Jobs, "Rsstrlottd Figurs Drawing as a Projoofcl?# ttsasurs of Personality," Journal of Sao ill Psychology^ LVIII (1962), 283»287•

Sllvsrstsln, A. B, and H. A, Hoblnson, "fhs Representation of Orthopedlo Disability In Children** Figure Drawings,* 3 3 ^ 1 ° X C o o l l t t U l a* Psyetoeieg'» ** ^©tober, 1956),

Stonesifer, Fred A., nA Goodenough Scale Evaluation of Human Figures Brawn by Schisophrenic* and Hon-Psychotic Adults," Jgirgfl &£ Qllntml Psychology* V (October, 19i*9)#

West, John Haailton, "Correlates of the Draw-a-Seene Teat," Joi»»al of Sllaloal Psychology. XVI (January, I960),

Tests

Hathaway, B. H. and J, C« HoKlnley, Mlnneeot> Multlishaa 1@ I m m t m s Haawl, Ww Torts, 1 titi ¥®y©koiogio&l

corporation* if 51.